For some reason, this makes Ryan, whose blogging is usually very well measured (as well as quite brilliant), go postal:Major highway projects take about 13 years from initiation to completion -- too long to counteract any recession. But at least they create a legacy that can improve the economic environment for decades to come...
Moreover, an infrastructure resurgence is desperately needed. Americans now spend 3.5 billion hours a year stuck in traffic, a figure expected to double by 2020. The U.S. population is projected to increase by 50 percent over the next 42 years. American residential patterns have radically changed. Workplaces have decentralized. Commuting patterns are no longer radial, from suburban residences to central cities. Now they are complex weaves across broad megaregions. Yet the infrastructure system hasn't adapted.
The smart thing to do is announce a short-term infrastructure initiative to accelerate all those repair projects that can be done within a few years. Then, begin a long-term National Mobility Project.
Create a base-closings-like commission to organize federal priorities (Congress has forfeited its right to micromanage). Streamline the regulations that can now delay project approval by five years. Explore all the new ideas that are burgeoning in the transportation world -- congestion pricing, smart highways, rescue plans for shrinking Midwestern cities, new rail and airplane technologies. When you look into this sector, you see we are on the cusp of another transportation revolution.
A mobility project would dovetail with the energy initiatives both presidential candidates have offered. It would benefit from broad political support from liberals and business groups alike. It would rebalance this economy, so there is more productive weight to go along with Wall Street wizardry.
So, please, let's not pretend that a 14% increase in government spending has been all about stimulus packages, okay? And really, why in god's name does Brooks think he knows the first thing about whether stimulus does or does not work? All stimulus plans work, to some extent-$100 billion in spending or tax cuts doesn't just vanish.
The question is how well such plans work (and there's data available!), and how efficiently they can be crafted. These subtleties are seemingly lost on Op-Ed Doofus. But having accepted that the world is going to pass another round of stimulus, despite the rhetorical power of his inane, uninformed babbling, he suggests that infrastructure is the way to go. Which we can all get behind. Unfortunately, he immediately starts writing about more stuff he doesn't understand, namely, transportation economics . . . Now, perhaps I ought to read this charitably, as the harmless urgings of a writer who really wants us to build a better America. I'll leave it to you all to do that on your own time. To me, it sounds like Brooks really wants to make it easier to build a bunch of highways. Commuting patterns have changed, you see (in response to what, I wonder?), and transportation hasn't kept up. Plus we have to reduce congestion (which has grown in response to what, I wonder?), and somehow this would all "dovetail with the energy initiatives both presidential candidates have offered." O RLY?Look, a broad project to improve the nation's infrastructure is very desirable. We should be spending a half a trillion dollars on this. But if we approach this effort from the position of willful ignorance that has created so many transportation problems, then we're not helping anyone. So let's review a few things, shall we?
Induced demand is no joke. If you build new infrastructure people will come, so it's important to think about where you'd like the people to go when you build new infrastructure. A massive wave of highway construction will push people outward. It will increase commuting times, and in the long-run it will increase congestion. It will increase energy demand, because no matter how you power your car, longer trips mean more energy consumed. In the short-run, it will mean an increase in dependence on fossil fuels. It will massively increase maintenance costs. If you think caring for today's highway network is expensive, then just try doubling it in size. If we try to accommodate a 50% increase in the country's population with entirely auto-dependent, horizontal growth, then we're all going to end up miserable and poor.
This is, quite frankly, the stupid way to think about transportation. Brooks did mention congestion tolling. The use of congestion pricing would immediately solve the congestion problem while raising billions of dollars that could be used for reinvestment in the nation's transportation systems. Instead of building more roads, we could focus on maintaining the ones we've got, and on upgrading the busiest corridors within and between cities to faster, greener, higher capacity transit and rail systems. That's how you tackle multiple problems at once. Make that shift, and you reduce maintenance costs, reduce congestion, reduce energy use, and increase economic productivity.
The downside is that there's a higher up-front capital cost. But that's a good thing, given that we're also talking about stimulus, correct? Right now, when we need to spend the money, and when government borrowing is fairly cheap, we should be investing a great deal in these projects. Then later, when the economy is rolling along and we want to reduce spending, we'll have an infrastructure that will allow us to do it.
For starters, Brooks's statement about stimulus doesn't strike me as particularly controversial. The point of stimulus is to use the government to artificially expand aggregate demand by borrowing at fairly low interest rates and spending the money. The problem is, if you send out checks, most of the checks seem to get saved, which creates a closed, useless cycle. And spending, other than through channels like unemployment and welfare benefits which already have well defined and rapid cash-transfer mechanisms, take so long to get off the ground that they rarely come until it is too late. Monetary stimulus is faster and usually more effective, unless you are, as we are now, in some kind of liquidity crisis where banks won't lend. It is dispreferred mainly because it too needs to be applied early, and politicians have little control over it. This being about what Brooks says, in somewhat less technical language.
The rest of the column does not actually seem to be at odds with Avent's overheated rhetoric. Brooks did not, to be sure, stand on his chair screaming "Spend it all on trains, you fools! You'll kill us all!" But spending it all on trains is first of all, not politically very likely, second of all, inappropriate to the many sparsely populated areas of the United States, and third, not desireable according to most of the experts I've talked to, not least because things have to get from the trains to other places. If we want to, for example, expand our freight rail, this may imply more highways to rail hubs.
Perhaps I'm just prejudiced because my father, a rock-ribbed Democrat and HUGE rail buff who sat on the Senate's recent commission on surface transporation finance, emailed me a loving note about that column this morning, saying that it read as if he'd been eavesdropping on the commission. But even beyond that, the very worst you can say about Brooks' column is that it's not as gung ho about stimulus and rail as Ryan is. I respect both of Ryan's positions, while disagreeing with them, but Brooks' positions are well within even the center-left mainstream. For the life of me, I cannot imagine what there is in there to get angry about--unless you're a hard libertarian who hates any and all government spending.
How does Ryan Avent propose to force me on to public transit? Just curious.
If it meant your obsessive posting on here would diminish, I'd be all for it.
I didn't say "why," I said "how."
And my posting will diminish in a month or so, perhaps sooner. So keep your chin up, happy days are coming soon.
This just doesn't reflect reality. REALITY IS that people move where the housing is, and localities have been playing a dirty trick on their citizens by approving new zoning for massive housing developments, taking millions in road and school proffers from the developers, and then NOT building the infrastructure that the new developments require because they just shove the proffer money in their General Funds and use it elsewhere.
Roads are not a "built it and they will come" situation. You can't build a backyard shed without government approval, and the fact that road construction has not kept pace with Evil Sprawl is 100% a result of poor state and municipal budgeting.
In Virginia the state of the roads is terribly behind the needs of the populace, but Virginia's politicians, rather than change budgeting priorities to reflect this, keep on offering to raise our sales tax to fund transportation improvements (with, of course, no guarantee that the funds wouldn't be later appropriated for something else). And time and time again the voters reject it. We know better than to trust the Commonwealth to keep that promise.
Luckily for me I recently moved to Loudoun County, which actually uses proffers to build roads, and frequently just forces developers to build the roads themselves as part of the zoning approval.
By the way, I'm completely opposed to expanding rail in moderate/light density areas, which is all the rage among Smart Growth advocates. If any infrastructure stimulus program were to incorporate such a goal it automatically indicates that they are unserious about actually improving transportation.
Wondering if you can respond to this question:
What benefits would result from the government changing their accounting methods to align more closely with GAAP? Specifically, a change from expensing everything to capitalizing investments in the future (i.e. infrastructure projects)--the government could even produce an income statement, balance sheet, and cash flow statement. (Maybe they already do this, I don't know).
It seems to me that this might lead congress to making better spending decisions by better aligning expenses and benefits. Clearly spending on infrastructure (expensed over time) is different than a stimulus check to citizens (expensed immediately).
If anyone cares to respond, it would be appreciated.
"For the life of me, I cannot imagine what there is in there to get angry about--unless you're a hard libertarian who hates any and all government spending."
Even then, one might want to take a slightly more measured view, simply for the sake of one's health, given the incidence of government spending.
Because Brooks made a compound adjective out of "base-closings-like"?
Some might argue that rail promoters care deeply about fixing transportation problems but hold a different opinion of how to do so, but I guess the only people who truly care about transportation issues are those people who already agree with you. Funny how life works out like that.
Rail in light/moderate density areas does NOTHING to reduce road use (since you have to drive to get to the train station), or to improve capacity in a cost-effective way (since per-person building/maintenance costs are far higher for rail than roads). Roads can be expanded almost infinitely to meet demand (thanks eminent domain). Rail, not so much. Washington DC's Metro is at capacity with growing ridership, and they still can't operate without major subsidies, and can't expand capacity much more without adding lines and stations, which is tremendously expensive. For a place like NYC heavy rail is useful, for the 'burbs and relatively low-density cities, it's a boondoggle playing to people's romantic and, yes, unserious notions about rail travel.
Is it smart to spend "stimulus" on things that need recurring maintenance costs? Is that what got us in an "infrastructure problem" in the first place?
Underspending on rail might also be something that led to highway/bridge overuse and maintenance problems in that direction ...
Anyway, a quick slap and dab project at stimulus infrastructure might not be quite as good as a reasoned infrastructure plan. Better IMO to spend stimulus on things that can be ramped up and down again quickly and easily.
Really mostly the TONE was vituperative, not much of the substance. Perhaps he just plain doesn't like Brooks (certainly some of Brooks's writings can be found to upset just about anybody regardless of political spectrum), and relished the opportunity to get a few volleys off while promoting his own interests.
Everything ever built has recurring maintenance costs.
In all seriousness, I do not, in my experience know of anyone who has lived in New York City (myself included), and has advocated anything as egregiously coercive as a congestion toll without being either a hardcore rail buff or someone simply with a grudge against automobiles in general with militant NIMBY tendencies. Added to which, I do not think it is any sort of hard libertarian position to be against a congestion toll, as the majority of people who travel into cities (NYC at least) already do so at an expense that they have weighed meager compared to the advantage of the convenience of enhanced mobility and freedom. They already deal with entrance tolls and parking fees, not to mention ... THE CONGESTION!!! What we are talking about is eliminating a problem for people who already choose to accept such as a condition of their transportation choice, and which was already one which those who decided to live in the heart of a metropolis should have known ... namely, it is busy and congested.
PS: We can sip tea and discuss the added burden this congestion causes our environment or some other such platitude, but even assuming we were to achieve that shining day when all our cars were silently gliding little electric baubles, there would be no dearth of misanthropic city dwellers who demand Riverside Drive be mute save the birds and rushing water at the expense of others' right to go to work.
"Everything ever built has recurring maintenance costs."
But does a quick stimulus cycle have to build anything? Put on concerts in the parks, etc.
Or more seriously, extend the unemployment benefits, expand the food stamps, give out a few (hundred?) thousand scholarships ... and then phase them back to affordable long term levels.
"This just doesn't reflect reality. REALITY IS that people move where the housing is, and localities have been playing a dirty trick on their citizens by approving new zoning for massive housing developments, taking millions in road and school proffers from the developers, and then NOT building the infrastructure that the new developments require because they just shove the proffer money in their General Funds and use it elsewhere."
That happened in the suburb of Oklahoma City my parents used to live in. The city council took big money from developers to build a bunch of high density, slapstick housing. Before they did that, the suburb was low density with paved country roads and subdivisions where everyone had an acre or more and farmland. They took the farmland and put in developments with the houses stacked on top of each other but did nothing to improve the county roads or infrastructure. The result was to take a highly livable area, it was kind of boring but hey it is Oklahoma a pretty yard, pool and a nice house away from anyone to bother you is the charm of the place, and made it into a a suburban mess. Oh don't forget the government mandated section 8 housing that brought all the disfunction and crime of the big city. But a few people on the council and the developers got rich so what is not to love?
Some years ago, I saw a study in Public Interest on speeding up infrastructure to help the economy during a slowdown.
In brief, all modern presidents had tried this (including Reagan), and it hadn't work for any of them. For whatever reasons, they simply weren't able to speed up the projects.
Ryan Avent was the nattering wag who, back around August or so, was the subject of ridicule because he expressed agreement with a MADD-style NYT editorial which held that cars should have speed governors pegged right at the speed limit. Ryan Avent backed up his support of the position with some tripe about how the only purpose of having a car that can travel faster than the maximum posted limit (apparently, it's the same in all states) is so that suburban teens can gift-wrap suburban trees.
Doubtless his response to Brooks' column was visceral, based on his relative ignorance of the commuter world outside of dense east-coast urban and suburban development, which leads him to believe that a majority of commuting and congestion problems can be solved with more mass transit.
This is backwards-reality, I guess. In my neck of the woods, if a developer wants to build new housing it's on them to make sure that the new development has adequate sanitation, plumbing, etc. _Not_ the city. In fact, I'd say that accounts for about half the town hall meetings I attend: There's always some developer who wants to offload these costs on to the city, instead of laying pipe, stringing cable and digging ditches on his own dime. Aggressive developers are also why paying attention to local elections is so important. Every so often, you'll see an unknown pop up who's all about 'growth' and who has big plans for the city. Someone who seems to have pots of money, and is outspending known faces by three or five to one. The long odds are that they are fronts for some developer like the Kroenke group, and that their main goal is to rubber-stamp all rezoning and development proposals.
So if Christina is so all-fired up about the inadequacy of her city council, I suggest she do a little investigating to see who's being financed by whom. Maybe she could take the initiative and the word out to the voters as to what's going on, or maybe she could run for city council herself.
This guff about wicked, devious local politicians looking to defraud honest developers just doesn't pass the smell test.
This guff about wicked, devious local politicians looking to defraud honest developers just doesn't pass the smell test.
She didn't say they were defrauding the developers, she said they were "playing a dirty trick on their citizens," quite possibly with the collusion of developers who, as you point out, probably don't feel like doing (or paying full price for) the real work themselves.
Odograph,
No, it doesn't have to build anything, but then there is even less justification to actually do it for "stimulus". I am not in the camp that believes in this stimulus nonsense to begin with, but if one is going to advocate it, I would like to see the money spent on something that can recognized as a capital item, otherwise you are just biasing consumption over investment.
Sure induced demand exists, but it's just not important. It's exaggerated and not well understood. It's not a big deal, so much so that I consider the idea bullshit. It's an interesting phenomenon, but that's about it.
It should be noted that David Brooks focused on a national mobility project,not a national highways project.
Mobility is the key, because it is really a surrogate for productivity. Brooks is very much channeling the thoughts of the National Study Commission on Surface Transportation Policy and Finance on which your father sat. If we don't make the investments in mobility we will not be ready to take advantage of growth opportunities that come in the future. As things stand now,logistics costs are up for American businesses and spare port capacity to support export strategies is at an all-time low.That's why it is important to invest now in mobility.
It is interesting to see how many people automatically focus their attention on where they live when they talk about congestion. It is just as important to talk about where the jobs and the commercial activities are located. Heavy rail works in New York City because thoughtful people almost 90 years ago thought very much about where people would work and shop as much as about where they would live. It is unfortunate that in most metropolitan areas the planning and coordination structures don't exist to do the same job now and for the future.That's why New York City generates under 10 miles per day per capita in vehicle miles traveled,Portland generates 24 miles per capita, and Atlanta generates 36 miles. New York City started its growth with great planning, Portland added it in the middle, and Atlanta never thought it was important. So guess whose citizens suffered most from $4 gas.
And transportation is not all about moving people. It's also about moving goods and freight. Even if we never built another road to connect to peoples' homes, we would need to build up a highway infrastructure to accommodate freight movements within metropolitan areas.
Unless,of course, you don't think that there will be any more economic growth or population growth. If there is no more economic or population growth, then we can live with what we have and just fix it periodically. But growth and per capita GDP growth in particular generates more freight movements and that needs transportation investment. And congestion pricing doesn't work on goods movement. As it is, freight moves at the speed of net value to the user. If you need it over night, whether it's a package or a railway locomotive, you can get it air freighted.Otherwise one chooses to wait. Mobility is about choice.
And it's not clear that congestion pricing works in urban areas to eliminate congestion. After all, congestion exists because there is a net value,after the cost of time and treasure, at the end of the journey rainbow. New York City already has substantial congestion pricing, but it's not just or only public congestion pricing. Congestion is what allows East Side garages to price parking at $ 50 a day and the City of New York to collect an 18% tax on top. And if you price out some people, they will go elsewhere. Which is why Manhattan hospitals already pay transportation and parking costs to attract high-skill nursing specialties, since doctors can't earn if they don't have nurse support. As New York learned in the 70s, high taxes on manufacturing because you think it's a cash cow (which was NYC's attitude in the 60s) does change the behavior of business owners. NYC's interest in congestion pricing is based on the assumption that it will not lead to firms relocating. That's not a well-tested assumption.
And,of course, there is the energy dimension to all of this. The key import-substitution strategy that we can pursue is to invest in alternative fuels and alternative-fuels transportation. We can do rail electrification if we have the strong grid and nuclear power options. We can do cng or electric cars, but we do have to invest in the support structures and the production facilities. And, by the way, while oil prices are down now, that's because of demand collapse, not because production costs at the margin are down. New oil is still costing over $90 a barrel at the wellhead. If you think the storm will be over some day, then you have to be prepared for the return of $ 150 oil.
So David Brooks does have it right. Infrastructure investment,particularly import-substitution support investments, are quite right for the times.
SOV,
As is your usual way, you completely misread what she wrote. She never claimed the politicians were defrauding the developers, she wrote the politicians were defrauding the citizens. She even stated this explicitly so as anyone should have been able to understand it.
And Rob Lyman, as is his usual way, beats me to the punch.
Heavy Rail also works in NYC because of the utterly bizarre geography of the place - not only islands, but long NARROW islands with rail arteries.
I like aMouseforallseason's explanation.
Take the money - build no new roads. Plow it all into repairing/restoring/replacing EXISTING bridges before they fall down. That'll suck up a LOT of cash.
"Everything ever built has recurring maintenance costs."
But does a quick stimulus cycle have to build anything? Put on concerts in the parks, etc.
Interesting, we could subsidize back-rubs. We could cut it off at anytime without having to worry about people's health declining, or backrubber having to find new careers. Very stimulating.
Induced demand amounts to increased economic activity due to reduced costs.
Uh-huh. Those wacky developers. That is, of course, why she wrote this:
And no, I fail to see how it is the city's responsibility to provide those essential services unless they are specifically paid for by the people who want to stick in a housing development in the middle of nowhere. That's certainly the view in our town - why should the taxpayers subsidize a builder's costs?
This illustrates yet again why 'conservatism' is despised by so many people. When conservatism comes to mean 'coddle the businessmen and give them whatever they want', people are, imho, quite rightly repelled by it.
The use of "O RLY?" was inappropriate and rude; she should save that crap for message board flame wars.
For what it's worth, I'm not a stimulus stalwart. Nor am I a real infrastructure (green or not) booster.
The idea that we spend counter-cyclical to the business cycle makes sense though. So I'm left wondering if we spend, and save, weakly counter to the business cycle or strongly?
Seemingly smart economists argue that stimulus is (or will be) needed. I'm trying to understand that.
I also have some sympathy for the idea that if infrastructure is needed, now is not a bad time to buy it. Even green infrastructure (we apparently could use a high voltage connection from SoCal sprawl to desert wind/solar farms) might be ok ... if it is really sensible and if we'll really need it.
But this all seems fuzzy enough that I might rather have concerts or back rubs, in place of bad and too long lived infrastructure projects.
How hard was the TVA to kill after the Great Depression? Well, it never died, did it?
As a Libertarian, I'd like to give all these city planner types a nice office and a copy of SimCity to keep them busy. Then you know, lock the office and throw away the key...
So, by my count, we've got at least three people - at least two of whom are self-described libertarians - who think that if developers don't bother with the hookups to city services, that if they don't pay for installing sewage, plumbing, etc . . . it's the city's fault.
I'd kind of think, me being the raging socialist/communist/liberal that I am, that the primary responsibility is owned by the builder who actually installed the units, and the secondary responsibility is owned by the people actually buying the house; that they'd, you know, actually check to see what the sanitation situation was before making an offer.
Silly, silly me.
Why do that when you can just reflexively blame 'the government'?
I fail to see how it is the city's responsibility to provide those essential services unless they are specifically paid for by the people who want to stick in a housing development in the middle of nowhere.
I agree with you. Christina agrees with you. In all probability Yancy agrees with you. There is therefore no need for you to act as though we disagree with you.
Her point was that the developers were paying the city to change the zoning/approve plats. These payments are ostensibly to improve roads and schools, such improvements being necessary to service the new development properly. Politicians then "defraud" not the developers, but the citizens by instead spending the money on something else and leaving the roads and schools in their old, now-inadequate condition.
And in fairness to the developers, they can't just go around building roads and schools as they see fit; they kind of do need the city to do that, or at least coordinate and direct it.
if developers don't bother with the hookups to city services, that if they don't pay for installing sewage, plumbing, etc . . . it's the city's fault.
Sewage and plumbing--and in particular, hookups to water and sewer, have not come up except in your posts. Certainly not in Christina's, mine, or Yancy's, nor indeed in Avent's or in our gracious hostess'. We were talking about roads.
But in fairness, a city that took a "sewage proffer" and claimed to planning to spend it to expand the sewers and treatment plants, but instead spent in on a gleaming new City Hall, would be guilty of the same sort of behavior that Christina criticizes.
Basically the situation is that the government can borrow at ridiculously low rates. If the goverment is to borrow, it can be safely be assumed that it will spend the money. Now, the question is what do we want them to spend on; things people won't use, digging holes and filling them up, or something that might further stimulate the stagnant economy by INDUCING DEMAND!.
Um, you're kind of contradicting yourself then; if the developers paid good money up front in good faith, then yes, the city has defrauded developers.
Is that really all that hard to understand, or are you just being reflexively disagreeable?
Also, given that this would be some sort of news, I went ahead and typed: city council defrauds homeowners into Google and a few other strings of that sort.
Guess what? Oh, heck, you know what: Those cases of the city defrauding developers were suspiciously absent according to my casual perusal. Developers defrauding everyone else though . . . oh boy.
As I said, this is the sort of ill-informed muttering and speculation that makes people rather leery of 'conservatives' these days. That certain people are willing to go on truthiness rather than truth, and that they think this has the whiff of truthiness let's you know how extreme they really are.
Sigh. This is exactly what Christina originally posted:
Oh, wait. Somehow I'm still wrong. Somehow. Do you have any idea of just how you come across? Hint: it ain't moderate, and it ain't reasonable.
Um, you're kind of contradicting yourself then; if the developers paid good money up front in good faith, then yes, the city has defrauded developers.
Only if the developers are harmed by the failure to improve the roads. Which, for the most part, they aren't; they can still sell their houses, and the resultant traffic snarls don't affect them much because they probably don't live there. But they do affect the citizens, both those who buy the new houses and those who live in the community already.
Somehow I'm still wrong.
Why, yes. Unsurprisingly, we immoderate unreasonable types took "infrastructure" to refer to the "roads and schools" mentioned in the previous clause of the same sentence as being the purpose of the proffers, or perhaps just "roads" as mentioned in the subsequent 3 paragraphs, the original post, and all other posts on this thread other than yours.
Is that really all that hard to understand, or are you just being reflexively disagreeable?
"reflexively disagreeable" is my middle name, as regular readers no doubt already know.
So. Rob doesn't think developers would be harmed by a failure to improve the roads, schools, etc. because 'they can still sell their houses.' Right. Doubtless they could 'still sell their houses' if said dwellings were put on the market at $5,000 each. Iow, houses with 'good infrastructure' could be sold for more money(and yes, people will pay more for a house that's in a district with good schools. This is news to Rob?) So, yes, I kind of think that the developers would feel just a little put out.
This isn't hard to figure out, seeing as how they've put up good money and gotten nothing in return. I vote for reflexively disagreeable.
Unsurprisingly, you're going with 'water and sewer lines aren't infrastructure'.
Anybody else besides Rob want to also claim that water and sewer is _not_ infrastructure? Contrariwise, does anyone besides Rob want to claim that schools - schools fer goshsakes - are 'infrastructure'?
C'mon, don't be shy. Show Rob some support ;-)
Isn't this about the time where you say that "couldn't care less" is same thing as "calling you a liar"? Or that "vegetarianism is a religion"? Except maybe 'technically' not?
Feel free to depart from you little script.
And on a larger note, does anyone believe Christiana's little mash note to her city representatives?
Oh, and people need oxygen to live. Lithium is the third element in the periodic table and the lightest Earthly metal. Today is October 31.
Go ahead and find a way to disagree with all of those statements too. 'Cause I'm still wrong. Somehow.
Unsurprisingly, you're going with 'water and sewer lines aren't infrastructure'.
I'm going with "context matters." At least to those of us who aren't reasonable, rational moderates like yourself.
Doubtless they could 'still sell their houses' if said dwellings were put on the market at $5,000 each.
Bad traffic due to inadequate roads (and overcrowded schools) will certainly reduce the value of a new development, but I think it doubtful that it will knock two orders of magnitude off of the sales price available to the developer. The problems tend to manifest themselves only after the neighborhood is mostly filled, and early buyers may (reasonably) expect that the problems will be resolved in light of the developer's payments to the city.
Go ahead and find a way to disagree with all of those statements too. 'Cause I'm still wrong. Somehow.
As I pointed out above, we do not actually disagree about the fundamental point that developers should pay the costs of development. We simply disagree about whether a city which exacts money as a condition of plat approval defrauds the developer by failing to make the improvements for which the exaction is ostensibly intended.
Also, IIRC, it's environmentalism which has characteristics of religion, not vegetarianism. But I could be remembering wrong.
Sigh. If the developers gave the city money to build the necessary infrastructure, and they got nothing in return, they've been defrauded.
At least, that is what I think. You think they haven't, but, well, that's your opinion; at least, your opinion for now.
Or is this where you declare that 'context matters', and so you're really still right, even though it looks as if you're wrong? I'll have to remember that one - "technically I'm wrong, but not in context." Is anyone surprised that when I Google on housing and infrastructure, I get water and sewer near the top of the list, for exammple:
Today is October 31.
No, it is November 1 for everyone who lives on Central European Time, as I do (and for everyone to the east of me).
Good night!
I'll have to remember that one - "technically I'm wrong, but not in context."
You would do very well to remember that one, as it is a source of constant irritation to both you and the people who find themselves disagreeing with you. Most people give words meaning based on what surrounds them; you consistently refuse to do so. I neither doubt nor deny that water and sewer constitute "infrastructure" within the normal meaning of that term. I merely assert that Christina's meaning when she chose that word was "roads and schools." To read what Christina wrote to include sewers is to distort her intended meaning.
If you don't like the way she used "infrastructure," then you should criticize her choice of words rather than deliberately giving it an unintended meaning and proceeding to criticize her for saying some thing she plainly did not intend to say.
If the developers gave the city money to build the necessary infrastructure, and they got nothing in return, they've been defrauded.
This assumes that the developers are the ones who are to be the beneficiaries of the new roads and schools (I refrain from saying "infrastructure" to eliminate confusion). But the main benefit of better roads and better schools will flow not to developers, but to residents. So--as Christina said at the beginning--it is really the residents who have been cheated.
The developers may even have gotten a sweetheart deal, if the city charged them less than the building cost of an actual new road or school.
Heinz, look at the date on your posting. But thanks for pointing out by example the lengths people will go to so that they are not wrong, and that the other guy is not right(I was wondering if someone halfway knowledgeable in the physical sciences was going to point out the hydrogen, being in the Ia group can, under the right conditions, be a 'metal'.)
Sigh. If the developers gave the city money to build the necessary infrastructure, and they got nothing in return, they've been defrauded.
That would depend on what kind of infrastructure we were talking about, and it is pretty clear to anyone who read the thread without windmills on the brain that the lead-in topic was roads.
Here is a textbook example that may clarify things: Suppose there is a moderately busy two-lane highway out front of a proposed development site, and the city says to a developer, "Okay, you can put in 5,000 residential units here over the next three years, but this will increase the traffic load, so we need you to pay $X for the infrastructure improvements we anticipate neeing in the next five years." The developer pays the fee and builds and sells the 5k units. The city then fails to put in the six streetlights, stoplight, signage, and turn lanes required to support the traffic patterns at the intersection because the councilmen suddenly discover a pressing need for their job to include a personal vehicle this year.
Guess what? The developer meets all his obligations, sells the homes, and walks away with his profit. The city gets the money it needs to make the road improvements, but doesn't, instead appropriating the funds for purposes that are essentially corrupt. And the citizens of the community are the ones who are hosed -- both those who have to navigate in and out of the new development, plus everyone else who normally uses that road for commuting.
I think the irony meter just exploded here. No, most people don't think that 'vegetarianism is a religion', no matter how hard you stamp your widdle feet and say that in this context it is. Nor, in context - my context - does your objection make any sense. Do you think the situation is different somehow because the 'infrastructure' is water and sewer instead of roads and schools?[1]
It seems to me that of the two of us being overly literal, I'm not the one to level the charge at. But you're going with context, I imagine, because it's one of those subjective things that can't be decided objectively. So in context I am addressing Christina's absurd claims. And in fact, just so we have a little context here, this is my original post:
Gee, looks as if I was talking about roads there too. Or is this where you say that 'etc' is not 'roads', so that 'technically' I'm wrong? ;-)
And finally, back to a bit more of your - I have no problem with this characterization - idiocy:
No, this assumes that the reasons the developers are doing this is to be able to sell more houses, and at higher prices. Which won't happen now because those improvements weren't made. Just why did you think developers were (supposedly) giving the city additional money? Just a bit of philanthropy?
Frankly, to argue that paying someone for a good or service, and then having that person deliberately fail to deliver what was promised is _not_ an example of fraud is bizarre.
I get the impression you think you're playing a round of "If you can't make me say I'm wrong I win." No, what we're playing here is "Let's see how long it takes Rob to figure out he has to let go of the banana."
[1]Because, in fact, doncha know, forever, and ever without end, amen, I could have just as easily made my point with, say, a pair of guys who want to put in 400 units just off Clark Ln, which has a two-lane feeder road dating all the way back to the 20's and which is maybe twenty feet wide. Oh, did I mention that the main sticking point was their absolute refusal to pay for widening the road and filling in the (very hazardous) ditches on either side? (sarcasm)Well, that's a completely different situation from sewer mains you were talking about before(/sarcasm).
Rob, Mouse, you guys are making a valiant effort, but I'm afraid it's probably not worth it. SOV has determined that I'm full of shit because I used the word infrastructure when I should have repeated roads and schools. I thought repeating the same phrase twice in the same sentence was bad form, but apparently it was necessary.
SOV, I apologize for making you so upset with my unfortunate choice of terms. I was not including water and sewer in "infrastructure," mostly because they are not typically, to my knowledge, included in proffers, and more importantly, not germane to the larger discussion. They are usually part of the permitting process and mandated as a matter of course by localities, along with storm water management facilities. Proffers are generally determined on a case-by-case basis as part of the zoning approval process.
Also, your suggestion that I run for city council in hopes of ameliorating this condition is sweet, but further betrays your failure to read my initial post thoroughly and in good faith. I said in that post that I recently moved to a locality that does make proper use of their proffer money and even has developers do the necessary work for them.
Also I don't understand what you mean when you say, "And on a larger note, does anyone believe Christiana's[sic] little mash note to her city representatives?" Please explain.
Sorry, but the painful truth is, despite Brooks's tone, he's absolutely right: "more roads" is NOT a long-term solution to congestion. Whatever increased capacity you have today will simply get used up as people take advantage of it. "Road use expands to meet available capacity". That's happened every time roads have been widened. Furthermore, you quickly run into hard limits, as those ultra-wide roads have to dump their loads onto smaller roads, which necessarily can't have the same capacity.
The only ways to handle congestion are to either a) fundamentally change the incentives facing drivers who use those roads, or b) use a much-more scalable transportation system -- like rail/subways.
To do a), you'd have to seriously jack up tolls on all road users at rush hour. None of this piddling $3/vehicle toll. I mean enough to make rush hour run just as smoothly as before and after. Then, people who take the bus would take about the same time to get there as everyone else, and would have the financial incentive thereto.
But, people don't want to make that tradeoff because frankly, they're stupid. They genuinely don't see the opportunity cost in spending ~2 extra hours in transit that requires their full attention, as opposed to paying a cheap toll on a private bus. Ay, there's the rub.
Why, Christina, I've just mentioned _another_ case where some developers in our town wanted the city to not only zone for housing, but to pay for widening the roads as well. How, pray tell, is that different from having other developers wanting the city to pay for infrastructure like water and sewage? This being the _huge_ difference you think it is, I'm anxious and eager to hear your explanation. And no, whatever you may have heard, it is not that unusual; in fact I was reminded of this by your initial post( I advised some Smart Young Things not to buy in this instance, and in fact, things fell out pretty much as I predicted with the sewer problem.) Big surprise.
Fear not that I am upset; what I am is amused :-) Like I'm sure I will be when you explain this:
Funny that, but as I've already mentioned, while there are pages and pages and pages and pages of stories about perfidious developers defrauding various entities, there seemed to be relatively little to be found that matched your situation. So be a good lass, and point me to a link, hmmmmm?
Oh, and are you going to stick to your silly story that if what you say is true, the developers aren't being defrauded? Or is that other people putting words in your mouth?
I suspect that the larger problem is what I will call the Great Contraction: Already the big square states are seeing major declines in population growth; I think one of them, North or South Dakota has actually experienced negative growth. I don't know what would happen without the influx of immigrants, but in any event it seems to me that heartland is becoming hollowed out. All the industries and technology that made it boom in the twentieth century are moving on or becoming moribund and obsolescent. The 'smart' alternatives, like rail, efficient metro transport, etc, simply won't work here as the distances are so great. GM, Chrysler, Ford? Their problems are a symptom of a region in decline, economic and otherwise, not an ultimate cause. All those knowledge-based 21st century style jobs? Those are going to the coasts. While it's not polite to sneer at the flyover country types, the fact of the matter is that they are not especially fond of knowledge in the first place, in fact, oft-times think that to be so is a mark of effeteness.
No, things aren't likely to improve much here in the Midwest outside the big towns until there is a sea-change in the culture; we need fewer (a _lot_ fewer) cowboys, and we need to have more (a lot more) Talmudic scholars. Jesus and the automotive industry aren't going to be saving anyone out here.
SOV,
I have no doubt that developers frequently try to get out of paying proffers and building sanitation infrastructure. Of course, what's important to remember is that no developer can actually defy the governing locality without getting the site shut down. No matter how you slice it, the resulting lack of infrastructure, be it roads or water and sewer, is 100% the responsibility of the locality. Sure developers can be a corrupting force, but they are not the deciding agent.
As to your assertion that I'm describing fraud on the part of government, fraud which you can find no evidence of, I suppose you are right. After all, the government is exempt from such charges, by the very fact that it is the policing force.
The proof for what I'm talking about, which is quite simply, misallocation of funds, can be found in the published budget of any such offending locality. What you do is you look in the revenue categories for 'proffers' and see what they took in. Then you look at their transportation expenditures and comprehensive plan for projects that would be associated with those incoming proffers. When you see that the locality is taking in proffers for roads they aren't building, or have no immediate plans to build, then you'll see what I'm talking about.
Do you think the situation is different somehow because the 'infrastructure' is water and sewer instead of roads and schools?[1]
Yes. Houses without sewer service are indeed virtually worthless, as you suggested. Houses with inadequate roads are worth very nearly what they would be as those with adequate roads at the time of initial sale (that is, when the developer cares).
Just why did you think developers were (supposedly) giving the city additional money?
Because, as I mentioned in my above posts, the city may make approval of the zoning or plat conditional on the payment.
I'm having a real hard time with this one, probably because you're being vague (again.) In fact, depending who's on the council, and depending on what's being (re)zoned where (that last is _very_ important) etc., it can be a firm 'no deal' from the city to 'let's get this over with quick before anyone notices.' You know, pretty much like everywhere else.
So if, for example, you're talking about a development off of Clark Ln where the richer sort hang out, those citizens show up in droves, make their views quite firmly known, among which is the idea that any property development there is not going to be developed from funds flowing from their pocketbooks. Go about five miles west, the city council has no problem letting some weasel throw up about 100 units of plaster and fiberboard . . . without any additional 'infrastructure development' or aesthetic niceties like a few screening hedges and some trees.
And of course, once having made those concessions, and having paid those fees, albeit reluctantly, the shoe moves to the other foot, and developers are quite keen to see the necessary improvements made. Nor are they slow in touting them as reasons buy, and at a higher price.
Again, this is something new? And why is this"No matter how you slice it, the resulting lack of infrastructure, be it roads or water and sewer, is 100% the responsibility of the locality." Other than your say-so, of course.
Uh huh. 'The Truth is out There'. But you can't link to anything, and quite frankly, your tone is something that leads me to not take you seriously and to question these blanket assertions of evildoingness on the part of Government.
As I said, I'm not 'upset' at anything you've said or the way you've said it; if anything, I'm amused(I'll admit to being a little concerned the first, oh, eighty or eight hundred times I've heard stories like yours, told by people like you. But any emotion of that sort I ceased to feel in these situations a looong time ago.) But I would hypothesize, given the way you come on so strong that maybe, just maybe, you're a just a little bit perpetually upset yourself.
Right. Because there's no such thing as taking care of sewage on the cheap as an option, sceptic tanks under three feet of soil say. No, that's never been though of before.
And of course, when you made the options between sewer service vs no service and poor roads vs good roads, this wasn't any sort of attempt at stacking the deck, of course not. Nor would you be trying to gloss over the fact that yes, having poor roads can substantially effect the final asking price of a house, as well as the type of buyers(There's this thing called 'congestion'. Perhaps you've heard of it.) Not deliberate at all.
Now, I ask again, what is this difference?
And, having given the money, these same developers won't feel cheated when those promises aren't delivered on, even though they could make a difference of several thousands of dollars in the sale price.
Don't let go of that banana :-)
I trust that this:
I was not including water and sewer in "infrastructure,"
is good and sufficient evidence that my understanding of "infrastruture," grounded in the overall context, was correct, and your interpretation, divorced from it, was incorrect.
That said, I am not sure exactly where we disagree. I trust that we all agree that it is appropriate and right for developers to pay for necessary infrastructure upgrades, and that city subsidies for such upgrades are undesireable. What Christina urges is that some muncipalities, despite exacting money from developers for that purpose, then waste the funds, to the detriment of residents.
Do you find anything to disagree with in that paragraph?
SOV,
Ah, so you do agree with me! Your story perfectly illustrates the degree to which politics influences development and how greatly responsible municipalities are for poor infrastructure.
It's so nice to find common ground.
Rob -- you having a kid? Congratulations.
I'm getting in too late to have an influence here but I would imagine the reason for the anger is that proposals for massively increased transportation spending are about to become reality, rather than floating around ethereally. So this is the point at which such proposals will either move towards smart growth, higher density, public transit oriented solutions, or be quietly dirempted towards building more highways and roads. With any legislative initiative, there's the long period in which you build the public sense that "something must be done"; and then comes the very quiet, opaque period in which the something actually gets done, which is controlled by technocratic and political elites and gets little public input. That second stage is the really important one, and what Avent is surely worried about is that all the effort he and his allies have invested for years in building public support for transit reform will now be siphoned off into a bog-standard 20th-century Big Highways and Airports bill.
This is where the rubber meets the road or the steel meets the rail, as it were.
brooksfoe,
I'm getting in too late to have an influence here but I would imagine the reason for the anger is that proposals for massively increased transportation spending are about to become reality, rather than floating around ethereally.
You've been polishing that crystal ball again, I see. Given the HUGE non-transportation spending commitments the government has just made in response to the financial crisis, and the dismal economic conditions more broadly, the probability of a massive increase in transportation spending is remote, to say the least. If there is any increase in spending, the vast majority of it will almost certainly go to roads and highways and supporting infrastructure, since our transportation system is so overwhelmingly dominated by autos.
Transit fanboys can kiss goodbye to their fantasies of big new transit projects. What little money will be available for transit for the forseeable future is going to be eaten up by maintenance and repairs of existing transit infrastructure. The WMATA recently announced that it will need $11 billion in capital funding over the next 10 years just to maintain its existing services.
Rob -- you having a kid? Congratulations.
Not to my knowledge, but thanks anyway. I have two already, and they cut into my sleep time, not my blog time. No idea if there will be more.
Posting will diminish because I will be finishing up some supremely boring work and--one hopes--replacing it with something more interesting.
Chuckle. You've been shown to be awesomely, totally wrong. You have absolutely no evidence to back up your words.
And you're trying to declare victory and move on.
Sorta the defining characteristic of the right these days ;-) Whatever. It's obvious that you're not here to be serious, of course; but if venting against your bogeymen makes you feel better . . .
Uh-huh. Let go of the banana, Rob. And, sad to say, your language is suffering. Please don't tell me that you drink while posting.
Uh-huh.
Is that a "yes, I disagree"? If so, can His Moderateness be troubled to identify with specificity his disagreement?
And if there is no disagreement, why are we arguing?
A man is standing alone in a forest, and no 'Smart Growth' advocate is nearby. If he makes a statement of fact, is it still wrong?
If private capital can't or won't sign onto these projects, then we probably shouldn't do them. Our self-appointed transportation commissars aren't bright enough to overcome the law of unintended consequences. Only the marketplace is.
Weren't you just going on about 'reading for context' and all that? Is this more projection? Let me quote my initial posting:
And now, will you finally, at long last, admit that for _any_ 'infrastructure' being discussed - plumbing, schools, roads, what have you - the degree and quality of it most definitely affects housing prices?
Or is this where you keep hold of the banana? There's something . . . well, not quite right about this bizarre fixation of yours. And your, shall we say, idiosyncratic definitions of quite common terms in the English language. To be fair, though, that seems to be a common libertarian problem(imho), this redefinition of words things. Like for example when you insisted that 'consensus' meant 'unanimous consensus'.
If private capital can't or won't sign onto these projects, then we probably shouldn't do them. - wGraves
You're referring to the Brooklyn Bridge? Or the national highway system? Or the LA freeways? Or the Houston ring road?
I think folks like you should go ahead and put your ideas into practice. Build a community with only toll roads built by private companies who charge whatever people will pay for the use of the roads. Give it a try. See how it does. Just because nobody in the history of the world has ever built a community that way doesn't necessarily mean it's an incredibly stupid idea, necessarily.
SoV,
Nothing in what you just quoted is in conflict with what Christina wrote. It is possible for developers to seek susidies, as you mention, at the same time as city government mismanages funds exacted from developers. What was odd--and which provoked my initial post--was your closing statement about developers being defrauded, which is at odds with Christina's statement that citizens, not developers, were being 'tricked.'
Hence, I return to my question: where, exactly, do you disagree with Christina?
Rob, I think you need to answer my questions first. Certainly I've been more forthcoming than you up to this point.[1] For example, this one, which you keep ducking:
Or is this yet another case where you 'decline to answer'?
[1]For someone who's big on 'context' and comprehension, you seem to have missed that I have given you what you have asked for already. Go back and look up the thread.
Actually, I was thinking of AMTRAC, which should be euthanized, and the roads in my neighborhood, which are private, and which I pay for personally as part of a voluntary association. You partly pay for public highways as part of your gas tax. Then there are vehicle registration taxes. Use that money as a series of public contracts and bid the work of maintaining and enlarging the system out to private companies. I drive and I pay for the system now. They divert part of my highway taxes to subsidies for 'mass transit', which generally I don't use. Let those who want to use these systems pay for them with unsubsidized fares. If the numbers pencil out, then people will build them and the riders will pay for them. The government shouldn't be in the business of running transportation companies.
Go back and look up the thread.
I did that last time, and again just now, and I still don't know the answer. I'm not asking for any sinister purpose, I'm asking because I really don't know.
And now, will you finally, at long last, admit that for _any_ 'infrastructure' being discussed - plumbing, schools, roads, what have you - the degree and quality of it most definitely affects housing prices?
Yes, that is true. However, when problems are latent--as, for instance, in the case of roads whose inadequacy is only manifest after the vast majority of houses are sold, or when the planned retail segments have finally been added--or when the initial buyers reasonably expect problems to be mitigated in good time, the effect on value may be delayed beyond the initial sale. That is, from the perspective of a developer concerned only with the first sale of new houses, the effect may well be slight at most.
So while a developer might be defrauded by the misallocation of a proffer or exaction, the citizens definitely are. Which was Christina's complaint. Do you agree or disagree?
the roads in my neighborhood, which are private, and which I pay for personally as part of a voluntary association. - wGraves
If one of the homeowners in your neighborhood refuses to pay for the roads, what happens? He can't drive on them? Or you take him to court to force him to pay the "voluntary" road fee, because it's a contractual obligation written into the "private" community buy-in rules or whatever you call them? Who enforces that rule? The government? Who decides to upgrade the roads in your community? How are you mandated to pay for that upgrade? Who owns the land on which the roads run, and can the owner revoke the use of the roads and just take back the land for other uses? In what sense, in sum, are your roads "private"?
If the roads were owned by a separate company which simply upgraded them however it wanted to and then charged you a fee to drive on them, those would be private roads. I'm not quite sure how to describe your neighborhood association. I am quite sure that this is not a model that would work for Connecticut Avenue or I-84.
Christina states:
And - as usual for these sorts of claims made by these sorts of people - is unable to cite a single example of this happening. That's point one. The second point that if what she is describing is true, it's more like the localities are defrauding the developers by not delivering on what was promised.
"Roads whose inadequacy is only manifest after the vast majority of houses are sold"? If you see 600 houses in a development, and the only way out to the major roads is a cracked two-lane blacktop that is maybe twenty feet wide, your saying the inadequacy is only manifest _after_ 500 of those units have been sold?
For someone who professes a faith in individuals to make decisions for themselves, you seem to be awfully worried that prospective buyers wouldn't see this right off. Or that they wouldn't look at the surrounding location to see what they were letting themselves in for in terms of future development.
Or ". . . when the initial buyers reasonably expect problems to be mitigated in good time . . ." That word 'reasonably' sure takes a beating, doesn't it? In the specific case I had in mind, if I'm about to buy a house that will shortly be hooked up to city utilities because of an incorporation that's about to happen 'just as soon as we have this one hold-out on board', I don't think of that as a 'reasonable' expectation. My advice then, which wasn't followed, was to get some sort of notarized promise from the realtor that penalties of some sort would accrue in the event said annexation did not happen. Which is always my generic advice in these matters: If a landlord, realtor, seller makes you an oral promise get it in writing.
As a lawyer, do you disagree?
Otherwise, I don't see how an expectation could be 'reasonable'. That being the case, the assessment of risk is on the potential buyer, no one else (as I've said, repeatedly, I'm not particularly liberal.) And as a buyer, if 'Sewer, Gas & Electricity' is not obviously up to snuff, but I'm asked to buy on a promise that it will be when I move in, or if I'm buying in a district that's 'just about' to get a new school, or some other infrastructure upgrade, that's going to factor into my asking price. So it will be the developer that takes a beating, not me.
I'm curious, since I thought this was the 'reasonable' way to shop for a house - what would you do differently? You, personally?
See above. Further Google is your friend; let's see just how reasonable Christina's unsubstantiated claim is.
You can do your own digging if you like, though personally, I think that Christina should be the one to actually, you know, present some actual evidence. But it looks to me as if this is SOP. Which, if I were a developer, is how I would work it: yes, I'll pay those costs. But only if there is some sort of guarantee that I'll actually get my money's worth. Again, if you were a developer, what would you do differently?
No, this is just a standard content-free anti-government rant from Christina. If you look her up, you'll see she's prone to that.
So the system ate a long comment.
Short version:
Selling a home without sewer service would be illegal in most places. The house would fail inspection and no certificate of completion would issue. So not a single foundation will be poured until those issues are worked out. Conflating sewers with roads is erroneous.
Proffers (and their siblings exactions) are typically part of a negotiation between developers and the government which culminates in the approval of the development. That is, the developer does not pay for new roads. The developer pays for the issuance of permits, re-zoning, etc. Hence, failure to build new roads violates no agreement and cannot be fraud. It might violate the 5th Amendment rights of developers; I have no idea if that argument would win or not.
Finally, while your description of your own home-buying process strikes me as a wise one, I am doubtful that most buyers calculate their offers quite as precisely.
Stimulus infrastructure will not take 18 months to begin. Apparently, the right winger talking points on the Sunday talk shows included telling the American people that infrastructure improvement was bad economic stimulus because public works projects take so long to create jobs. David Brooks of the New York Times says any investment in Infrastructure will take 13 years. Mr. Brooks should stick to things he understands. I am a transportation engineer and I can assure you any infrastructure monies provided to the states could be used yesterday. My state has approximately 600 million dollars worth of projects effectively ready to go to bid and 200 million to do it with. If half of that money was labor (the other half being materials) the shortfall would represent 100,000 man hours at $20.00 per hour. Beyond a general “philosophical” resistance to public works projects, the wingers are out of touch with the state of the infrastructure and it’s funding in the United States.
Infrastructure funding at the state level is a train wreck or bridge collapse going somewhere to happen. Many states have seen level funding since the mid-ninties. What this means to the traveling public is roads in disrepair and bridges that need round the clock attention. It’s all because your local department of transportation has dealt with the same price increases everyone else has. When oil prices triple, so do most of the materials used to build roads and bridges. Many state departments of transportation have about 37 percent of the buying power they had twenty years ago.
Twenty years ago, a state could fix the roads, bridges and build new capacity to alleviate traffic with what was left. Those days are long gone. In order to match federal funds owed the states (this money was sent from the state in the form of an 18 cent gas tax) states have embarked on construction of new facilities. What this means is Road and bridge inspection and maintenance are on shoestring budgets. What happens is much like getting preventive care versus going to the hospital with an acute disease. A few cheap maintenance items left undone today fester into projects to rebuild a road or bridge later. The efficiencies demanded by the public in maintenance issues are becoming a bigger and bigger risk. With budgets so tight, one slip up can result in a tragedy like the Interstate 35 Bridge in Minnesota.
To prevent a tragedy, I hope the incoming Obama Administration will consult the chief engineers of the state departments of transportation directly. If the President-Elect does this, his infrastructure stimulus monies will immediately go to work. If he listens to the WONKS on the Sunday shows, the earmark prone congress or a dysfunctional Federal Highways Administration upper management, his money might begin to work sometime in 2015.
The author apologizes about the sabbatical. The 27 month old HP laptop responsible for this blog had a hard drive attack. As usual the computer had a 24 month warranty. The drive has been replaced by mail order and, Incidentally, I highly recommend this method. I have replaced the drive and am back in business.